From our point of view the answer is clear: because annexation violates the self-determination of nations or, in other words, constitutes one of the forms of national oppression.

From the point of view of the Polish social-democrats, one must make special efforts to clarify why we are against annexations, and these explanations (I, 3 in the theses) inevitably entangle the authors in a new series of contradictions.

Two arguments are adduced by them in "justification" of why we (contrary to the "scientifically-grounded" arguments of the Lenches) are against annexations. The first:

"...To the assertion that annexations in Europe are necessary for the military security of a victorious imperialist state, social-democracy counterpoises the fact that annexations only intensify antagonisms and thereby increase the danger of war..."

This is an insufficient answer to the Lenches, because their chief argument is not military necessity, but the economic progressiveness of annexations, signifying concentration under imperialism. Where then is the logic, if the Polish social-democrats at one and the same time recognize the progressiveness of such concentration, refusing in Europe to restore the boundary markers demolished by imperialism, and object to annexations?

Further. The danger of what wars do annexations intensify? Not imperialist ones, for they are engendered by other causes; the chief antagonisms in the present imperialist war are, unquestionably, the antagonisms of England with Germany, Russia with Germany. There were and are no annexations here. The question concerns the intensification of the danger of national wars and national uprisings. But how can one, on the one hand, declare national wars "in the era of imperialism" impossible, and on the other hand, advance the "danger" of national wars? This is illogical.

The second argument.

Annexations "create a chasm between the proletariat of the dominant and oppressed nations"... "the proletariat of the oppressed nation would unite with its own bourgeoisie and see the enemy in the proletariat of the dominant nation. In place of the international class struggle of the proletariat against international bourgeoisie would come a split in the proletariat, its ideological corruption..."

These arguments we fully share. But is it logical to advance mutually exclusive arguments on one and the same question, at one and the same time? In § 3 of section I of the theses we read the adduced arguments, seeing a split of the proletariat in annexations, and beside it, in § 4, we are told that in Europe one must be against the abolition of annexations already committed, for "the education of the working masses of oppressed and oppressing nations toward solidarity in struggle." If the abolition of annexations is reactionary "sentimentality," then one cannot argue in such a way that annexations dig a "chasm" between the "proletariat" and create a "split" in it; on the contrary, one must then see in annexations a condition for the rapprochement of the proletariat of different nations.

We say: in order that we be capable of accomplishing the socialist revolution and overthrowing the bourgeoisie, the workers must unite more closely, and this close unity is served by the struggle for self-determination, that is, against annexations. We remain consistent. The Polish comrades, however, recognizing the "irrevocability" of European annexations, recognizing the "impossibility" of national wars, beat themselves when they argue "against" annexations precisely with arguments from national wars! Precisely with arguments of such a kind that annexations hinder the rapprochement and fusion of workers of different nations!

In other words: in order to object to annexations, the Polish social-democrats are forced to take arguments from such a theoretical arsenal which they themselves on principle reject.

Even more vividly is this evident in the question of colonies.